There have been studies done before asking average people to estimate how high an object is in the sky (generally balloons or kites) and the estimates were generally awful. Even judging the difference between 60 and 200 feet is generally beyond the range of what most humans can comprehend in vertical distance.

Are you unaware that there are "side deals" with the IAEA to which Congress is not privy?

So you're trying to tell us that there are secret deals that congress doesn't know about, but you do? I'd love to know who your sources are that congress is not able to communicate with.

I defy you to show when I (or anyone else, for that matter) has EVER floated a theory that HRC or BHO initiated the attack on Benghazi, irrespective of motive.

If they didn't initiate it, then why are you so angry about them having the cause of it wrong the first day they briefed the media on it? How can you be so sure that they knew how it came to be - and gave an alternate story for it - if they didn't call it in themselves? Your claim that they initially were lying can only be backed up if they knew that what they said was wrong. You haven't provided any other explanation for why they would have known it to be wrong, unless they had themselves fabricated the intelligence reports that existed up to that point (which, in the world of your conspiracy, would have only been done for political gain).

Congress has full authority to trash and/or disregard the proposed treaty.

By not submitting a treaty as a treaty, for 2/3 ratification, I'm pretty sure President Jarrett has indicated her overall opinion of whatever Congress has to say.

So apparently your assumptions about what someone else might think about someone is more important than the fact that this is not binding without congress approving it. Gotcha.

President Lawnchair sent his top diplomat over

the stone cold disaster that was his predecessor.

Hold on a second, here. One of your Benghazi conspiracies claims that she - with or without President Lawnchair - initiated the attack on Benghazi for political gain. If that is the case, then she most certainly is not a disaster as the attack most definitely happened. I know you champion so many conspiracies that you have a hard time noticing when one is contradicting another, but this one is pretty damned obvious.

You've jumped well into conspiracy land again, there. Congress has full authority to trash and/or disregard the proposed treaty. President Lawnchair sent his top diplomat over to work this out but that doesn't make it a done deal.

Clarkson was at fault. BBC is at fault. Society is at fault. We like to watch Clarkson BECAUSE he is not above being non-PC if he thinks he has a reason.

You can assign blame however you like, but the punch was thrown by Clarkson. Nobody physically forced his hand. If he really is the same person on and off screen, he may want to consider seeking psychiatric help.

If you don't like him, don't watch him.

Personally I think he's hilarious. I've been watching Top Gear for about a decade or more now. That is not an endorsement for him to be as arrogant off screen as on, though; I view Top Gear as a source of entertainment. People who watched Breaking Bad didn't expect Bryan Cranston to be a meth cooker in real life; why would I expect Clarkson to be the same person in real life that he portrays on TV?

I haven't purchased a new desktop CPU in at least that long. I know we have great new stuff out there but I just haven't seen anything come in for some time that justifies the cost when my existing stuff still works for what I do.

This sounds like a sour grapes statement coming from you. Your hero gave a famous speech where he condemned an entire nation as "evil"; and you are apparently astonished that they did not instantaneously change course just to get within his good graces.

Given the importance of this issue, I have instructed my negotiators to fully brief Congress and the American people on the substance of the deal, and I welcome a robust debate in the weeks and months to come.

Which is decidedly different from any kind of go-it-alone, my-way-or-the-highway type situation as your rhetoric is trying to imply. Nothing is guaranteed to Iran at this point.

So your claim of this being against

our notion of self-government

Is based on nothing at all. Government is still moving on the matter and can still move away from it. This is not a bullied push towards the invasion of a sovereign nation this time.

Seriously, read what happened. Yeah, BBC has done plenty of bone-headed things in the name of PC. This, however, is not one of those things. Clarkson punched a staff member. He admitted to doing it. Physical assault is very clearly a violation of workplace terms there. Hell, if you punched a coworker at your place of employment could you reasonably expect to keep your job? I'm quite sure I could not and I am not nearly as highly regarded (or highly paid) as Clarkson.

This ended up being about the fact that the same rules need to be applied all through the pay scale. Just because he is a celebrity, and a host of the most watched television program in the world does not mean that rules do not apply to him. Hell, if that had happened here in the US, he'd be facing a multi-quintillion-dollar lawsuit already.

Although, comparing it to Iran-Contra is unfair to President Lawnchair. The deal that the Lawnchair administration proposed doesn't mean anything if congress doesn't ratify it. They signed it on our behalf but it is up to congress to follow-through.

In a rational time (and this sure as balls ain't) this particular stunt would be more impeachy than simply peachy.

Really? At what point did it become an impeachable offense to send our top diplomat to look into diplomatic issues? Nothing is actually guaranteed to Iran until congress says so. Interesting that have brought up "impeach" again, you had previously said that you realized there is no point in pursuing that avenue any more due to the time line impossibilities of it. Although considering some of your other conspiracies require time travel, I guess that shouldn't really be considered a hurdle for you any more.

I presume I am not one of the "usual suspects" - or if I am, you are getting no pleasure from me. Who, then, would they be in this case? You don't really expect this to somehow shame President Lawnchair into voluntarily aborting his presidency while he is on the victory lap of his last 19 months, do you?

I haven't seen any indication of it including the damning email that was sent from President Lawchair - copied to Hillary Clinton, of course - that authorized the terrorists to make the attack on Benghazi so that President Lawnchair could reap huge political gains. You'll likely therefore file it under "fiction".

On top of that, if it only covers 13 hours from the first bullet, it won't include the SoS initial description as that came more than 13 hours out.

But we can't let those pesky facts get in the way of your favorite conspiracy.

Furthermore your constant state of goalpost-moving - particularly the fact that you are able to support your team in part but anyone of any other team must support their team 110% of the time - is again noted.

Is that like when you try to typecast #OccupyResoluteDesk to "conservative", or do you have some other meaning in mind?

No. There is no goalpost moving or assignment of blame when I point out that President Lawnchair has secured an executive record as the most conservative president in the history of our nation to date. It is simply a direct observation of what has actually happened thus far.

Hmm. I point out some of the failings in your conspiracy and you attack me; that somehow makes your conspiracy stronger? Interesting.

As for "abject cretins", you haven't shown any reason why yours are better than mine. Furthermore your constant state of goalpost-moving - particularly the fact that you are able to support your team in part but anyone of any other team must support their team 110% of the time - is again noted.